may enrich uranium. they would enrich uranium at that point to levels near weapon grade, i'm presuming claiming the desire to power a nuclear navy because that is what brazil is doing. so i assume they're going to do the same thing. that would all be per missable and all be blessed under the agreement, as i read. no matter who is in charge of iran in ten years. that's why ranking member engel have a letter going to the president, seemed by over 330 members of congress, demanaged that the verifiable constraints on iran's program last decades, not as per being discussed, a shorter period of time. i just want to make that point let me go to my next question. the administration set a benchmark of a one-year breakout period but is a year sufficient to detect and then reverse potential iranian violations and

why not insist on a period of two or three years? >> mr. chairman, we think that a one-year breakout time, not only is sufficient but is quite conservative. we believe that with the verification and inspections and monitoring we'll insist on in any agreement, that would give us more than enough time not only to detect any abuse of the agreement but also to act on it. if you look what various experts said, many have said that a far lesser period of time would be sufficient to detect and act on any violations -- >> well, let -- >> if i can just add to this very quickly. one year is conservative. first of all that's the most -- if everything went perfectly for iran it would -- second, the idea that any country, including iran, would break out for one bomb's worth of material is highly unlikely, like i said -- >> let me go to this question. will you insist that the

inspectorred have anytime, anywhere access to revolutionary guard bases and will iran have to satisfy all questions iaea has regarding iran's coverture search on a nuclear warhead? >> so, without going into the details because of is this still subject to negotiation, we'll insist that they iaea have the access to do its job -- >> i understand your perspective of what is necessary to do their job. but mine is a specific list of criteria based upon my discussions with the iaea, and i want to make setter that those are found -- or followed and then lastly it seems the administration plans to push the security council to adopt a new resolution to basically bless this agreement and relax sanctions, but at the same time, you're pushing off congress. why push for u.n. action but not

congress? >> we're not pushing off either. as you said and as ranking member engle said, congress will have to 'lift sanctions at the end if iran complies and keeping that until the end that iran is complying -- >> our concern here is if you push us a if for ten years let us say in theory, and if -- this is consequential enough to go to the u.n. security council at the outset under a resolution under chapter 7 which by definition deals with a threat to peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression, it would certainly be consequential enough to be submitted to the senate for advise and consent. >> the security council -- this is an international agreement, an agreement that would be made with the other members of the u.n. security council. it would be normal for the

security down take note of any agreement and then create a basis for lifting the u.n.-related satisfactions -- sanctions and congress has to decide whether to itself u.s. sanctions. >> my time expired but suggesting congress has a role to play by voting on sanctions relief years from now once a deal has run its course that to me is disingenuous. that's my view. will go to mr. engle for his questiones. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me first also emphasize that the trepidation that all of us have about the negotiations involves at least for me, what the chairman said that any deal that would sunset in ten years, or however much, we're very obviously concerned about and i know yous are well, and we obviously want to push that back as much as we possibly can because we really just don't

trust iran. i think the chairman's right on the mark in terms of our concern with the sunsets in ten years or so. another thing that has bothered us -- again, as the chairman mentioned, he and i had legislation which passed the house two years ago by 400 to 20 and unanimously, out of this committee, which involved strong sanctions and halt the senate followed suit and been signed into how i think we would have been in a much stronger position now. one of the things that's really annoying to all of us is that we are sitting and negotiating with iran over its nuclear program at a time when iran continues to be a bad actor all around the world. you take a look at capitals that iran essentially controls, now

yemen being added to that. baghdad, damascus beirut. this is not a regime that looks like it wants peace. iran continues to fuel terrorism around the globe. it's the number one in my opinion, state supporter of terrorism around the grown globe. so i believe a nuclear agreement should not whitewash the fact that iran remains a destabilizing actor in the region and funds terrorism. the iranian revolutionary guard corps could theoretically take advantage of sanctions relief from the p5 plus 1 for iran because money is fungible. how could such relief be struck tiered to minimize benefits to the iranian revolutionary guard corps. >> thank you very much. first let me just say we share your deep concerns about iran's activities in the region,

destabilizing activities support for terrorism and it's own abuse of human rights as home, which is why we will and we will continue to vigorously oppose those efforts, and throughout the interim agreement we have pushed pack very hard on prolive activities wmd related activities terrorism support activities, sanctioning individuals, intercepting cargo and et cetera and work with partners to build up capacity. with regard to any money that iran receives as a result of relief from sanctions, i would turn to my colleague to discuss this but let me just say issue think what we see is that iran is in a very deep economic hole a large of the reason that rouhani was elected as president was to respond to the desire 0s over them people to get out of the hole. so we believe any significant portion of revenues would be used to plug the economic hole at home.

but money is finningible and that would free up resources for the rgc. we also perceive that denying iran the weapon the most single strong e this to do to embop bolden iran's actions in the region. >> let's me just say that's precisely what we're concerned about because iran is in a deep economic hole by having an agreement and releasing that, helping them so to speak, get out of the hole. we want to obviously make sure, and you do as well to make sure the safeguards are in there as well. heat what makes mer in volunteers. once you lose that leverage it's very hard to get back. mr. szubin. >> that's a concern we have been keenly focused on. the truth is the size of the hole that iran is in, across almost any indicator you look at, is far deeper than the relief on the table.

even the substantial relief should iran make good on all of the commitments that are being set out by the negotiators we're talking about a hole that could be described in onesons the 200 bill hole, which are the losses we assess they've suffered sense 2012 due do sanctions. in just the energy infrastructure as i mentioned during my opening statement their men stir came out and said they need 170 bill just to rogain their footing in the secretarior alone. the average iranian has seen steady decreases in their standard of living. decreases in their purchasing power. even signs rouhani came into office and the jpoa went into effect. it's going about a tremendous effort for iran to right itself and that is not going to happen overnight. finally, just want to reiterate what department at the secretary linken said. noun of our sanctions are going

away. notch those are on the table for discussion. so with respect to the interventions in yemen and syria, we -- and hezbollah very notably, we'll continue to pressure any storms of support we see. >> let me ask you one final final quick question because you mentioned hezbollah elm ail agree that iran continues to support terrorism and sew instability in the middle east. however the director of national intelligence did not include iranian terrorism or hezbollah or any terrorist threats in the 2015 worldwide threat assessment of the u.s. intelligence communities. can you tell me why? that didn't make any sense to me, or you can send me a letter about it. >> i'm happy to get back to you. my understanding heads he remains front and center in our concerns itch think the director was talking about the immediate front burner concern we have with isil and that was the focus

of his remarks. but it remains a foreign terrorist organization. it remains very much in the spotlight of our efforts to counter it to push back on it. >> and could not exist itself it wasn't for iran. >> that's correct. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. engel. >> thank you so much mr. chairman. already blinken, during your confirmation hearing in the senate you promised senator rubio and the foreign relations committee that you and the administration would consult congress on any policy changes the administration was seeking toward cuba. that turned out to be a police falsehood. i worry that the cuba example is a deliberate attempt by the administration to keep congress in the dark reporting the castro negotiations. and why is this important? not only because of the cuba deal but how that implicates the

iranian deal, keep us in the dark foreshadows the administering's approach to congress and keeping us out of the loaf on the iranian deal. the administration has made it clear it does not want congress to vote on the iranian feel anytime soon, but you just said to mr. royce that the u.n. security council will be having a vote, binding vote on the iranian deal, just to make it clear, you will be going to the u.n. security couple to ask for a vote -- security council to ask for a vote on the iranian deal. yes or no? >> we'll be going to the security council presumably, this is an international agreement -- >> yes -- >> to take note of the live in are any -- >> vote on the deal. >> -- any requirements of the security council -- >> to vote -- it mill they can -- >> congressening payment but the up can't. >> congress has a vote. >> ten years from now. >> and lift sanctions. >> no problem. and palestinian statehood.

there have been reports last night that in order for president obama to continue his temper tantrum towards prime minister benjamin netanyahu, what we be doing in the united nations push for palestinian statehood to n tornado pressure israel to be at the negotiations table with the palestinians. is that press report true? >> no. the administration's support for israel is absolutely unshakable. -- hey. >> that's very classic, thank you. thank you. i'm going to ask you another question on iran for a minute but i wanted to ask mr. szubin. your kubica sanctions regulatory revisions earlier this year took a very broad view of the administration residents licensing authority under the

trading with the enemy act, and i fear that the administration is using cuba at a test case as i said for normalizing relations with iran and will utilize its licensing authority to provide broad relief for iran. under the jpoa the u.s. is committed to removing nuclear-related sanctions on iran. hough, as the author of the iran sanctions law, the concept of an exclusively defined nuclear relate sanction on iran does not exist in u.s. law because the sanctions are enter 2009ed -- intertwine if witness the hum human rights report and support for terrorism. ask you which sanctions will you seek to suspend and ultimately lift under a final agreement and will you come to congress to ask for authorities before such action is taken?

>> thank you. with respect to actions in the cuba amendments i will note that licensing authority is one that has been drawn on by administrations, democratic and republican, over the last decade and i've been involved under both presidencies, and it's an authority -- >> thank you. it's going to take a long time. mr. blinken, iran has been cheating, skirting the rules violating international agreements. you have heard from both mr. inningle and mr. royce on that. what mechanism do we have to enforce any violation? will there be penalties inbedded in the nuclear snivel you can be specific. >> thank you. first i should note that the iaea has said repeat lid the iran has complied -- >> have the hey also said that iran is not complying and is not

letting them in also the iaea has asked. >> not. it said under the agreement iran has complied. and outside of the agreement iran of cower -- >> you look at their reports and say, your cherry pick and say the iaea is happy with thus. >> no. >> you should grandfather the to cality of what they have been saying -- >> no, no. >> and how frustrated that agency is with iran throughout the negotiations. >> i want to be clear to answer your question, that the iaea said that with regard to its obligations natural the interim agreement, iran has complied. you're also absolutely correct that outside of the agreement, including the critical question of the possible military dimensions of iran's program in the past or for that matter now it is not complied with what the iaea is seeking and indeed that will have to be part of any agreement. and as to enforcement, it's very straightforward. at the undersecretary said, as i said in the event iran could renege on any -- >> i'm sure that iran is just shaking at that. >> that's why they're at the

table. >> -over. >> oh, yet absolutely. >> mr. brad sherman of california. >> we should remember why we're in this situation. the executive branch under the bush administration refused to enforce sanctions and violated american statutes for the benefit of iran for eight continuous years. the bush administration prevented congress from passing and used all of its power in congress to prevent us passing new statutory sanctions. now, that doesn't fit with the image we have of president bush until you realize that at the time the sanctions all focused on international oil companies which was not president bush's target of choice. had we continued president bush's policies, -- we should know that during the bush administration, iran went from zero to 5,000 installed sentry fumings. had we continued those policies iran would have $300 billion more available to

it in cash right now because we have frozen 100 billion and 200 bill has been lost to iran in lost oil sales but it is not the executive branch but congress had i it right for the last 15 years, which is why i talk such offense when i hear the administration say, congress, if we have a view, were interfering and undermining. when you read the united states constitution you'll see when it comes to economic sanctions and economic -- international economics, all the power is vested in congress except to the extent that the president negotiates a treaty that is ratified by the senate. yet i fear that what the administration is doing is using foreign ropes to tie the hands of the united states congress because the foreign minister of iran was able to cite article 27

of the convention on treaties, saying well, the united states will be in violation of international law if congress doesn't do whatever the president promises congress will do. i would -- and the administration feeds into that when a high administration official declares, foreign policy runs through the executive branch and the president and does not go through other channels. i fear that we will have a situation where the executive branch comes to us and says you have to take this action. you're prohibited from taking that action. because you're going to hold the united states up to ridicule for being in violation of international law. i would hope that you would look at the memo issued by the carter department of justice that stated, congress may enact legislation modifying or abrogating executive agreements,

and that if that was formally turned over to the iran delegation, that would get us -- -- the convention on treaties. i should point out for the record that in 2007 senator clinton introduced, with the cosponsorships of senator obama and senator kerry, the oversight of iraq agreements act which stated that any status of forces agreement between the united states and iraq that was not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the senate or authorized by legislation would not have the force of law, and prohibited funding to implement that. for the record because i just don't have time to give you at this moment i'd like you to explain whether under the standards of the obama administration the introduction

of that act by those three senators constituted an interference with policy undermining president bush's policies ate. i want to focus on a particular question. there is a question here. i fear you have misled this committee in telling us that once iran has the rights of a nonnuclear state, subject to additional protocol, that you'll be able to stop sneak outbecause you said first, can't develop a nuclear weapon because that would be illegal. that a preposterous argument. obviously they're willing to break the law. the next point is you have conjured up this idea there will be inspecifics. the question is inspections of suspected sites. there's nothing in the additional protocol that adds to the npt. the npt was in force and it took two years after it was widely suspected that fordo was a

secret side for the iaea to get there. so why do you tell us this iaea worked find for japan and the netherlandsed and work great for iran when it wont allow us to get in quickly to suspected sites. mr. deputy secretary. >> thank you very much. first, if iran makes an agreement it will make it with the full knowledge if it violates the agreement there will be severe consequences. >> talk about speaking. not being detected. secret spates. >> the inspection regime we'll insist upon for any terrible -- let me finish -- will be beyond that, that any country has had anytime, anywhere in the world. that will -- from cradle to grave of the production progress. mines, mills factories, centrifuge facilities. that will create a basis of knowledge of the people the places, the documents that will

last far beyond the duration of any of those provisions. then beyond that its obligations under a safeguards agreement all of those taken together with. -- give us the confidence that the inspectors will have the ability to detect in the timely fashion any efforts by iran to break out of the agreement. >> so you need an intrusive inspection regime, you'll have it for a few years, and then for reasons you can't explain, the blindfolds will go on and we'll hope that we can prevent sneakouts thereafter. i yield back. >> the blindfolds won't be off. they'll be off. >> mr. dana rohrabacker of california. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. keep being reminded that president bush is responsible

for all of our problems after all of these years. they're still blaming push push. if. >> i blame the executive branch and i spent four of-under blaming the current executive branch. >> thank you very much. i am -- are we actually more concerned about the mullah regime in iran having possession of a nuclear weapon versus what we seem to be just talking about, is their ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon? don't we see this -- do you see that in this debate mr. secretary? and shouldn't we be -- i think frankly, with mr. netanyahu's speech as well as what we have been hearing here, i think the american people are being lulled

into a false sense of security that if we just prevent them from being able to manufacture the weapon that these crazy mullahs aren't going to have their hand on the ability to possess a nuclear weapon. >> you have to pausch -- push a button. >> apologize. like it or not robb has mastered the fuel cycle and we can't bomb that away, we can't sanction that away, and unfortunately we probably can't negotiate that away. so they -- >> negotiate what warp? >> their mattery of the fuel cycle. they have the knowledge how to put together a weapon. so the issue is whether the program they have is so limited so cob strained so inspectioned so transparent, that as a practical matter they cannot develop material for a bomb, or if they did, we -- >> that's not my question

whether they can manufacture it or not. couldn't they get one from pakistan or from china or from korea or perhaps some stole a couple nuclear weapons as the soviet union was collapsing? >> you're point is very well taken. which is exactly why, is a my colleague said even if there is an agreement the various sanctions and stringent efforts we're making roped the world to prevent iran from proliferate organize receiving the benefits of proliferation will continue. >> the only way we'll prevent these bad guys from having the nuclear weapon -- we keep saying iran. we don't real in mean iran. the people of iran are nice people. in fact i understand they like americans more than just about any other country in the world. it's the mullah regime, the bloody mullahs supporting terrorism around the world, repressing their own people. isn't the real answer trying to

make ourselves partners with those people in iran who want more democratic country a more democratic country, and has not this administration passed up time and time again the opportunity to work with the people of iran to free themselves from these mullahs? >> congressman i think you're exactly right, that the actions of the regime are the problem, whether it's destabilizing activity friday in region support for terrori groups and if there abusive rights at home, which is exactly why across the board, whether it is standarding up some supporting those wore trying get greater rights in iran, whether it is working withour partners in the region continue crease their defensive capacities, whether it's pushing back on proliferation and nonsupport for terrorisms through the action wes have taken, that's exactly why we're doing that -- >> i would suggest that i give you an a-plus in terms of being

able to focus people's attention on the negotiations dealing with the ability for them to manufacture a weapon. i would give you an f-minus when it comes to whether or not we can try to get rid of the threat by helping the people of iran institute democratic government there. this administration from day one in order to -- frankly, the irony of this is, i believe this administration is bending over backwards not to try to threaten the mullah realike in iran in order to get a nuclear deal which will mike difference at all because is lives the mullahs with the right to own and's a nuclear weapon they didn't manufacture themselves. which leaves us trouble these -- >> i want to assure you they won't have the that right, period. >> we good now to mr. albio --

sires. >> thank you mr. chairman. you can think back to the department, how concerned this body is that we don't seem to be part of any of this negotiation and don't -- we seem to be bypassed. i remember when the secretary was here. we talked about cuba. and i asked him point blank about negotiations. they said nothing was going on in exchange. now we have a situation similar to what we had in those hearings. one of the questions i have is can you speak to how the u.n. security council resolutions are being handled the negotiations? once these sanctions are lifted i think it's going to be virtually impossible to re-impose them because i don't think russia and china are going

to go -- who have veto powers. ...

can you talk a little bit about the sanctions? >> absolutely. and again i will invite my colleagues to do the same thing. just as with our own distinction is, first of all we would preserve sanctions related to the nonnuclear aspects and second, any un related sanctions also would have to be listed in a way that shows first compliance with various obligations under the agreement so they in some fashion would have to be sequenced pending on iran fulfilling its obligations and we want to see a demonstration that they are serious but all of that including the sequencing.

in the event of a breach of his obviously in the forefront of our mind. is it reversible. but we are very focused on that in the negotiations to make sure that if there is a violation and there is an ability for one country to stand in the way of snapping back the sanctions. it's very much part of a conversation that we have among the negotiating partners as well as the conversations yes. >> iran has violated its obligations under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

it secret nuclear facilities, it has illicitly procured nuclear materials and it's denied iaea inspectors to the suspected facilities. so isn't it foolish to trust them now and wouldn't a bad deal be throwing israel under the bus and because of the intercontinental ballistic missile goals placing the u.s. at great risk i know you're going to say something to the effect of yarn off trusting or it trusting and verifying but there are a whole lot of us on both sides of the aisle that clearly aren't fighting fighting a. >> you are right here on has repeatedly violated the obligations which is why it is in the position position it's in now facing a distinction in the entire world and why it's at the table now trying to negotiate an

agreement. those violations are what led to our ability to impose the most severe sanctions of any country as we convince other countries. >> we are concerned we will end up at a bad deal. let me go to the second question. president obama has disdain for the winner of the elections this week. maybe the only group i can think of we might have more disdain for is the representatives of the congress and since israel would be the most directly affected by the bad deal with iran, how is the administration going to prepare relations with our key ally in the region? >> no administration has done more than this administration and the measures and steps we've taken. they've called him such.

no president has done more for the american and israeli relations. >> security relations, there has been no president has damaged that has damaged relations between the united states and israel were then this president. one of the concerns about the bad deal with iran has been proliferation in the region. there are indications that they are so alarmed that a bad deal is in the cards that they are already moving in that direction >> if there is no deal they could move to the nuclear. the best way to prevent countries from feeling the

necessity to do that is to prevent iran from getting a weapon. the model that being said by this agreement if there is an agreement is hardly one that other countries would want to follow if they decided they that they needed to acquire the capacity to build the weapon. anything that emerges from this agreement will require such interested in sections and i doubt any country would want to follow that model. the answer is what we have been doing which is to do everything we can to prevent them so they don't see the need to do that and to build up their capacity to defend themselves. >> our concern is we are going to end up with a bad deal and they are going to get nuclear weapons if the other countries will feel threatened then the others will end up in the middle of that.

other than iran is a far more dangerous country than north korea. we've seen this movie before and we know how it is going to end. >> the north korean program was far more afghan when the clinton administration was in office we believe they have the material for nuclear weapons into some analysts suggest he had weapons before the framework was signed and by the time president obama came in they had nuclear weapons. iran has neither. it doesn't have the weapons or the material and of course as you know they've already tested. the inspections regime that existed was far less than what iran faces right now under the interim agreement and then it would face under any

comprehensive -- >> there is great skepticism on both sides of the aisle for good reason. i yield back the balance of my time. >> ranking member of the subcommittee thank you mr. chairman and ranking member attitude witnesses it is agreed great to have you here in the new role. i understand that we are now approaching a deadline and i want to express my thanks as i have every single time i've had the opportunity for the focus on working to bring my constituents out. raising the issue at this point can no longer suffice with respect to jason and bob levinson if anyone is to take them seriously that there is any commitment they can make that would be adhered to that best

would be to return those americans i would urge you to make that a priority. next to pledge any deal certainly it is okay for us to address. i want to go through a few of those. will it be readily available to the congress and to the public. >> we strongly agree with the statement about the american citizens and i want to assure you this is something we are working on every day that comes up regularly in the context of the nuclear discussions.

with regards to whether the agreement will be made public certainly the core elements i don't know at this stage because we don't know what form it would take whether certain pieces would be made classified and subject to classify and what parts with parts would be public i can't tell you at this stage. >> it was made public and congress have full access to it. does iran remained the most active state sponsor of terror? >> whether it is the most active for sure in the very top percentage. >> is the administration considering removing them from

the list box >> no. >> when it comes to the issues, we talked about the number of centrifuges and the infrastructure. a question i have is whether the ultimate number of centrifuges is reduced from the close to 20,000 to 6,000 or the 3,000 whatever the arrays. what will happen to the rest and will any of them be dismantled will be will they go into a closet an addict, will be the available at the expiration of the deal? spinning all of that is subject to negotiations. you are right to point out in general that is a key component of the pitfalls of important to understand. >> i understand that but i would encourage and suggest it's the ultimate deal. it's difficult to be comfortable this is a serious enough step to prevent them from breaking up.

next i think you can understand the frustration that we have. they have reversible sanctions relief. but then went on to acknowledge the plan to go to the united nations security council and to make it clear that the un, venezuela and nigeria and make it a chance to vote on this deal now, that congress ultimately will have a chance to vote on this perhaps five ten 15 years in the future. i hope you understand the frustration. the question i have is how canvassing shins be reversible if the plan is to go to the united nations to reversal of the multilateral sanctions

leaving only the americans engines in place of? i want to try to make it clear that this is if it happens an international agreement has other parties to the agreement. that is done through the security council that would take note of the agreement and it would make clear that it's prepared once they demonstrate that they are meeting the commitment which would be at some point in the future because there would be a series of commitments under the deal and at that point to suspend or list the sanctions they would be be underground discussion and ultimately congress has to pass judgment on that. >> it. >> mr. chairman, if i could just ask to have been provided to us because i'm out of time on the provided to us a breakdown to the extent that you've done it over the $700 million that has been released the money that has been released every few months under the interim deal

and in the deal with a final deal might look like if sanctions relief to the extent to lyon 20 billion, 50 billion of the frozen money was released at one time where that money in the case of the deal has gone in iran and where it would go under the deal and whether it would simply wind up going to benefit the revolutionary guard and their terrorist activities. >> without objection so ordered. and we go to mr. mike nicoll of texas. >> mr. secretary, sanction one, two, three as you know, requires the significant nuclear cooperation agreement must be approved by both houses of congress. last year congress approved to such agreements. one was south korea and the other was great britain and our

allies. however, in this case leading up with the state sponsor of terrorism, the position of this administration is that it should not be subject to approval by the united states congress. i don't quite understand that distinction. can you explain that to me? >> what is the best form of an agreement in order for us to have the flexibility that we need to make sure that iran is living up to the obligation and impose them quickly if it's not. what we are seeking in the issue is whether this is a legally binding agreement or not if it is the legally binding agreement with the subject to the rules of international law. it allows us to have the flexibility we need is necessary to step back the sanctions and

not wait for international partners to agree or not agree. with regards to whether it is a treaty or not and thus subject to the advice and consent as you know is that the international agreements that we've made under the democratic and republican administrations and the nonproliferation area more generally in fact are not treaties and are not subject to the advice and consent of the senate. i could go through the list in the area we have everything from the controlled regime which has been successful in creating the licensing around the world. the american people through their representatives should be weighing in on this deal. icbm this has been off the table, not part of the

discussions at all and the intelligence community and the pentagon on the annual report on the cover of iran have noted that as early as 2015 of this year they may have icbm technology missile ranges that could potentially reach back as far as the united states of america and then the supreme leader says best to limit this program would be stupid, idiotic and the revolutionary guard should figure out the program and should mass produce. why in the world isn't this on the table and does that not concern you about their intent? >> it is absolutely concerned which is why we have been working very vigorously around the world to the united technologies for that program ended to push back in that effort whether there is an agreement or not will persist in those sanctions and various

measures that will continue regardless. the scope of this agreement if there is one is the nuclear program. that's what our partners have agreed to and what is being negotiated. it is not a missile agreement. there are aspects that come into this that are critical in terms of the capacity to make a nuclear weapon to missile and we are focused on it because that does fall within the confines. >> is kind of makes me question their own good-faith analysis here. you see he's taking a different path and is training to be a peacemaker. and said that the world power surrounded the arabian nations while. that is in his words and then

they said that the centrifuges are spinning and will never stop when the prime minister netanyahu gave his speech, they were blowing up the uss in the red sea. simultaneously, i questioned the good-faith here and you have an extraordinary challenge and i just have to question the good faith on the part of iran. >> it's not a question of good faith. it is a question of by the way whether it is the foreign minister and foreign minister and the others it's not that we think they are good guys but its others that are pragmatic for their own interest further of interest to the future and they believe that negotiating an agreement into getting some relief from the pressure that they've been under is what makes sense for their country because

they have good intentions. the other thing that is important is that there are statements made on a regular basis by the leaders on all sorts of issues and in some instances though some of the statements are made for political purposes. it's the only that doesn't have politics. and there is a block of politics going box of politics going on right now between those in iran who would want an agreement because it is in the interest of their country and some of the statements are as objectionable as they may be they are designed for political consumption to push back against those who do not want an agreement. >> i hear death to america on an ongoing basis regards to the politics and that is concerning for us. we go back now to david of rhode island. >> thank you for being here and

for giving us your insights on this important issue. i am hopeful that it will result in an agreement between death behind him as the chairman and ranking member said many of us have questions about the details of the final agreement in the letter and we will express to you what some of those concerns are. we are going to behave in a certain way is always difficult and we have no guarantee of that switch seems to me the goal of the agreement should be that we sent it out so that it's difficult for them to violate the agreement and that we make it certain that we can detect it if they do and that we have an opportunity to respond to that. that is the best that we can do to control the decisions of other people and so with respect to that they released a report that found at the u.s.

government mechanism for detection and monitoring of small nuclear enterprises were covert facilities are either inadequate or most often do not exist so in that context how do we know that we would learn if iran was pursuing a covert program particularly after the sunset of the competence of agreement, and will the additional protocols address this and is that a fair question to know we are not particularly good at that from the sound of it in general. >> you make a very important point and indeed i am well aware of the report by the science board. we are factoring in the report to recommendation as we think about any agreement with iran think that it underscores the absolute necessity of having the

most intrusive significant monitoring access transparency regime any place in the world and in terms of what happens in perpetuity it underscores the necessity of having at the very least the protocol modified to the 3.1 and the safeguard agreement. it will be built up by the transparency measures and we leave that all of those things taken together will give us the ability to detect to break out or to sneak out that the report underscores the absolute essential nature of those components at any agreement. >> would you speak for what you see as the kind of scenario if no agreement is reached there's been a lot of discussion about the urgency of enacting additional thing shines.

in the extent that happens happens do you foresee that would prevent the development of a nuclear weapon. not to impose pain on iran but the conditions such that they don't develop a nuclear weapon that is the ultimate goal and i wonder if you could speak to the alternative of the good comprehensive agreement what do you likely see if additional sanctions are imposed if the talks fall apart do we prevent a nuclear iran in that scenario lacks >> if it is clear at the end of the process that iran is simply not able and will not make a reasonable agreement then clearly that calls not only for sustaining the pressure but adding to it in an effort to get them to rethink that position and to bear down on all drawn in its efforts to acquire technology for the nuclear program in the resources for the

nuclear program. so that's where we want to go. if on the other hand we are at the end of march very close with the agreement on many of the key elements that not all of them. it might be useful to take the time that we have in june so we have to see where we are and the third possibility of course is that for whatever reason we have perceived as having been responsible for the failure to reach an agreement or at least there is enough blood in the water to create that impression that cannot and must not happen and that would make it more challenging but only to add new sanctions and pressure but to sustain the pressure we have because it's important to keep remembering that this is not just about us. the power, the efficacy of the

sanctions but congress has produced and that we've been implementing is exponentially magnified by the participation of others around the world and a lot of the power of the same chains will. >> thank you so much. >> i have a lot of questions and i think that you could answer many of them with a yes or no. they are not aceh questions but if i don't ask you to explain the answer, don't if you would. the ten-year agreement however many it is going to be is the deal that the sanctions would be lifted although the penalties is over with whatever that is are the penalties coming to an end? >> it would insist on demonstrating compliance and offend certain sanctions might be suspended not ended.

after still more compliance sanctions would be ended assuming the congress agreed to end them. on the international front we would be looking at demonstrated compliance by iran and if it is present we would have snapped back provisions internationally. >> would you agree about iran getting nuclear weapons and they are both concerned about the united states as well? the icbm if she were that isn't even being discussed as a part of this is a? the supreme leader has said they want to get rid of israel first and then take on us.

and the only one way to get to us is the icbm; correct? they are not needed to eliminate israel. they have other missiles that can already go and reach israel is that correct? >> that's correct. >> we are not trying to talking and trying to prevent the icbm. if i understand the position it is to get them from technology. >> what we are trying to do apart from this agreement -- the contours of this agreement go to the nuclear program and to the united nations security council resolutions regarding the program, that is what needs to be satisfied and those are the terms of the partners. second and apart from that we are working very hard to prevent iran from getting the technology -- >> yes or no. >> we are trying to prevent them from getting technology that is

it true but is it true that iran is pursuing the development of icbm in their country? so they are building the missiles and we are not trying to stop them we just don't want them to get the technology from the north koreans were chinese. >> the need to get technology from other countries. >> ..

um just a couple of more questions. the 2015 worldwide threat assessment put out by the national intelligence director of national intelligence. you said that this report focused on isis. if it is a worldwide assessment worldwide, wouldn't you think that it would mention hizbollah. you think it might, should? hizbollah is a foreign terrorist organization remains designated and a focus of our activities it is not mentioned as a worldwide threat in this report that is confusing to me. if the federal government comes out with a report and reports on everything it is

a worldwide threat assessment of terrorism, we leave off of the state sponsor of terrorism, iran and we leave off their puppet who is causing mischief all over the world, hizbollah. it seems a little bit confusing to me. would you recommend that maybe the intelligence agency go back and have an addendum to the worldwide report than other two organizations? i will tell that you led by the intelligence agencies we are pushing back every single day on the hizbollah activities you think that they can add to the report that hizbollah and iran are terrorism threats to the world? i will look at the report. thank you. thank you judge poe miss frankel of florida. thank you madam chair. thank you gentlemen for being here today. it sounds like the one thing that we all agree on is that iran should not be able to get a nuclear weapon. via couple of questions. if i could just state them

first and then -- first question is um if there is no deal how long would it take iran to at this point to break out and have a nuclear weapon? it's interesting. i heart frustration of so many of my colleagues is not trusting iran and nobody trusts iran. if we do not get a deal we do not get a deal is the alternative the realistic alternative a military operation? what would it look like? if there was a military operation. how long do you think that would delay iran from getting a nuclear weapon? what do you think would be the interim collateral damage? i am sure that you have discussed this. what is the scenario of not having a deal?

now. just to add to that have you said if there is no deal we will increase the sanctions. i am assuming that you have made a calculation that we have taken them -- this is a time to get a deal. so you can respond to those thoughts. thank you very much. i think that you raise very important questions. first with regard to break out time. this is something that i think we can best deal with in a classified setting. i will tell you broadly this, that currently, the break out time is a matter of a few months if everything went just right. of course we would even under an interim agreement, we would see that immediately. that is where we are. so if there was no deal that is where they would be. presumably under various scenarios they will seek to speed and increase the number of enter fujs and increase the number of capacities to move forward

on iraq. and as a result of all that have and a period of time the break out time will drop further. what are the alternatives? i think that is a critical question. at the end of the day. any agreement that is reached will have to be evaluated under the temps of at agreement. that is the most important thing. people have to decide whether the agreement holds up, makes sense and advances our security. i think that it is also going to be very important for those who would oppose the agreement if there is one. to say what the alternative would be and how it would be achievable. those are critical questions. because we are not operating in a vacuum. and an a distraction. so it depends on why there would be no deal. if it is clear at that iran was not going to make an agreement, and the international community recognized that, i this i that we would be in a position not only to sustain the sanctions that we have right now but to increase the pressure and to increase the sanctions. now however, if for whatever

reason that did not happen. if iran started to speed up to a weapons capacity to an obama. military option is always on the table. will remain on the table. if military action were taken it could certainly setback iran's program for a period of time. again, it is important to understand that because iran has the knowledge and we can't obama that away or sanction that away that at some point, they will resume their activities and probably go underground we will lose the benefit probably of the international sanctions regime and pressure and iran would be in a better position than it is today and certainly than it would be under an agreement. into and if you could, i am sure that you have talked about this what would be the ramifications especially in the region if all of a sudden there was a war with iran? what would be the consequences for example to israel? what would you expect? if iran were in a position

where they were rushing to a nuclear weapon many of the concern that's have been raised by the other members of the committee in terms of what others in the region would do would be front and send at the that would be i think very tempting for other countries to feel that they would need to pursue a nuclear weapon to protect themselves that is one of the reasons we will prevent iran from getting a weapon we do not want to see an arms race in the region nfl terms of israel this faces an extential threat from iran. indeed one of the reasons we will prevent iran from getting a weapon is defense of our ally and partner israel and would you expect further acts of terrorism? i would expect that iran unshackled with a weapon or speeding toward one, would feel emboldened to take action in the region including against israel and thank you ms. frankel. subcommittee chair duncan is recognized thank you madam chair it. is very informative. yesterday we had a hearing

on iran as well. do you believe that eye raven's president and active in the western hemisphere in yes. do you believe their influence is steady. and increasing. and as general kelly would say. do you believe it is not? i think that they are trying in various parts of the world and in our hemisphere to position themselves and take advantage of any openings that they have. the state department came out in 2013 and that the iranian threat is wayne regular you aware of that no i am, yes. if iran is. is iran on the state sponsor terrorism list? yes. they an aiding and abetting terrorism organizations like hizbollah all over the world what will change with the agreement with the regard to their being on the state sponsor of terrorist lists as of the administration? into nothing so we are negotiating whether the country not willing to quit exporting terrorist organizations that could

threaten the united states and friends and allies right? so we are negotiating in order to did he night nuclear weapon to embolden those activities. and at the same time we are making clear that whether or not there is an agreement we will continue to be taking action against efforts to do all of the thing that you just cited. iran is continually violated and passed obligations with regards to sanctions and relief and all of that. i think that it would make us not violate this? because the penalties that they would have to pay. the reason that they are at the table right now we all of a sudden think it will be legally binding on them? how do you think that they view that statement? well, i think that the issue is not whether it is legally binding but if it is very clear. it will be. if they violate the agreement they will have serious consequences whether it is legally binding or not. sanctions will come into full force. they have violated those and they have a bomb now. again with the regard to iran the very ran they are

at the table is that they spent years and years violating the administration. and international partners. we have exerted pressure on them and face with the the pressure, they are seeking to make an agreement. i think that pressure will work. the sanctions will work. and that they talked about the reprocussions of that. i will move on in april 2014 secretary of state john kerry said that the obama administration will consult to congress about the sanctions relief contained in a final agreement. and that of course. we would be obligated unthe law. and adding that what we do will have to pass muster with congress. we understand that secretary of testimony in the senate last week, excuse mecht the deputy secretary said and unsecretary cohen indicate that had the obama administration will not submit a potential agreement to congress for a vote. instead the administration will sign with the term day political agreement. what is the difference with what secretary kerry said 2014 and what is being said by the administration right now there is a difference sir the secretary is right first of all, in the

judgment at least. we have consulted throughout the duration of the negotiations as cited earlier. and 200 hearings and meetings and calls. briefings. if there is an agreement, obviously. we will go through that in great detail. in congress. and in open sessions and closed is heings and meetings and calls. as we have been clear all along. the agreement at some point will call and require a listing of sanctions and congress will decide whether to do that or not. so congress will have a vote. and indeed keep that can sort of thing over the haefdz the iranians. that is the knowledge that the sanctions have been suspended but not ended and the congress has the authority to enthem. we think will be left register today make sure that they will make good on commitments. madam chair. i do not have a lot of questions. thank you so much. thank you. though there is a vote on. and we have two votes. the subcommit sxeechl the full committee will come

back, we will never break without the opportunity of recognizing mr. connelly for his five minutes. i thank my friend. unfortunately, i have to begin by chastising my friend. the chair who is truly my friend referred to the president having a temperature tantrum about prime minister benjamin netanyahu and my friend from ohio. is he also my friend said that there is no president that has done more to damage than the u.s.-israeli relationship. i cannot let that go by. a foreign leader has insulted the head of the state of the united states government. it is not a temperature tantrum. it didn't start with president obama. it started with benjamin netanyahu. you can decide for yourself whether it was an appropriate for him to speak. to a joint session and the

process is beyond dispute. it was an insult to the government. friends don't act that way. i would say to my friend from ohio. it would come as news to shimon peres, that the outgoing president of israel who gave president obama the highest award that the israeli government can give for his support of israel at some point, does the partisan rhetoric ever stop? where are your loyalties. with respect to the perogatives of this government and our country. and the shameless way mr. benjamin netanyahu has conducted himself deserves a reproef. i think that the president is actually shown restraint. i say that this is something that has had a 35-year of unwaving support for israel. i am not a critic of the israeli government.

i am a critic of how this prime minister has treated my president. everyone's president. and i cannot sit here and list end to the waving away of bad behavior that is an insult to my country. we have one president. whether you like him or not. whether you want to take political issue with him or not. fair enough. that is fair game. when the foreign leader insults him, that should not be fair game. that should never be apologized away. it damages relationships long-term. it puts a divide where there was never a divide in public opinion in my country. i worry about that long-term. i hope that you do too. let me say mr. deputy secretary, it seems to me that there are five issues that congress will have to be concerned about. the broad extensional question.

are we better with the deal or without? i would argue the same prime minister of israel has never supported an agreement with iran. and though we are where we are. and he would like zero centrifuges and zero enrichment capabilities and a roll back so that there is no nuclear capabilities. so would i. i don't know anybody who can achieve that realistic lie. if you feel that, if those are your goals the only option is what has been called the kin eight i can option. if you are not willing to accept a nuclear capability. i am not sure that the american people support that. i am not sure that the israeli people support that. we would you agree that that analysis mr. deputy secretary? have you. thank you. would i agree as we discussed earlier that iran has knowledge of the fuel cycle and they know how to make a bomb if they choose to do it. we can't bomb that away.

we can delay it. we can't eliminate it. it is knowledge let me say i think that there are five issues. if we move on. okay let's accept that and so we will need an agreement. we will get the best agreement or seek the best agreement that we can with respect to my colleagues and congress. and including myself there. are five issue that's will have to be addressed and that the administration will have to convince us that you have addressed to the best of your ability to our avenuetion. and one is what capability is left in place? number of centrifuges and enrichment. and that can that we can live with or worry about? two, cheating. that inspection regime to me is all important. if there are holes in the inspection regime. i do not see how you will get confidence in the agreement thirdly, sanctions. how do we phase in the lifting of sanctions and assuming the agreement. how ex-fishedously can we reimpose them? the worry is that we will be

okay. our allies may not. fourth, the threshold time frame, there are a lot of legitimate concerns up here that it is too fast. iran will quickly rush to nuclear capability under the reported terms of the agreement. finally the expiration of the agreement and the time frame for expiration a lot of people are concern about the that. it is almost an open invitation to the future run in government to proceed. thank you very much madam. thank you mr. could not plea. this is not my temper tantrum to cut you off we are really out of time. i know. i know. and to committee members and witnesses. we have two votes on the floor, we will recess briefly and come back to get to the moment most amount of members that we can get to before the witnesses have to depart. with that the committee stands in recess. new.

thank you. thank you for your service your opening remarks were assuring to somebody like me that wants to see the branches as they were constructed and i want to confirm if you will bear with me that section will says that it is a soul

responsibility of congress to enter into agreement with foreign nations to include treaties and agreements such as the one that we have been discussing. i believe that you confirmed that again this morning. it will be congress's obligation to finalize ratify any negotiated agreement. because congress imposed and legislated sanctions on iran, congress is a great way to do it. they are the only ones with the athty to do it. that is what is in place. that part aside, any agreement with the details that the administration is participating in the negotiations in right now, it is congress that not only -- i think that your words this morning will play an important role that

indicates that there will be communication and framework that is reached by the end of the month. when reach with the significant communication and absolutely. and after that assume that can you can arrive at the final details by the end of june then i just want to make sure i understand your position on behalf of the state department is that congress will have to approve or not any final agreement. no congressman that is not the final agreement it would not be that which is subject to the advice and consent to the senate. it would be an agreement that as i said before would be terms to implemented and would have to play that role and will decide whether or not to do that. you are absolutely right

that after we sought throughout this you are right. if there is an agreement in coming weeks that we would consult intensely with congress on that agreement. every aspect that have agreement all you will ask for based on what you are testifying to this morning is that congress lift the sanctions. you are not going to ask for congressional a patrol to the final agreement. that is correct. so if if it is not legally binding than secret service kerry has. what do you believe that you are getting out of it then? and let me just add to it. i am trying to be measured. it disturbs me greatly to have people talk about giving an organization that

is not interested in peace around the globe and being an aggressor and trying to royal up problems. we are going to give them a lot of hard currency. explain to me how it is a good idea. two things. thank you congressman. whether it is legally binding or not. if this is really the question of international law. first and foremost. if you make a legally binding a agreement it. is subject to the various provisions of law that will make it more difficult to do things that we may have to do if iran will violate the agreement there are a lot of treaty law formal its. that we would have to go through if we said that iran is zie lating at agreement. we would have to present a reason to cease the implementation under the agreement. we will get into a debate with the international partners if they did not agree. i would run out of time with all due respect. i will run out of time. i think that this is the problem that the

administration has had and now that the administration and congress is having is this breakdown in an understanding of respective issues with the process. the idea that this administration is going to get approval from the u.n. security council is opposed to coming to congress is not only disturbing but it is wrong from my perspective all right thank you. again. i want to be clear, we will have to go, if there is an agreement to both there. are sanctions that are pursuant to the united nations security council that is implemented by the council to have the authority and will have to decide whether to lift them or not. and suspend them or not. similarly our own sanctions are imposed and legislated by congress. only congress will decide whether to end them. as you know, the vast majority of the international agreements that we strike around the world are a key tool of the foreign policy are nonbinding. mr. chair. i am going to yield back. i just want to make a

comment that it is amazing to me that the administration apparently puts congress and the u.n. on the same level in terms of what they will have to deal with. if the gentleman will yield the u.n. vote will come immediately. i am trying to be measured. were you. and i appreciate that tom. i do think that it will be a considerable amount of time under the calculus that the administration is working under. when they intend to come to congress for that vote. that is very, very concern concerning i appreciate the gentleman raising this issue. now to bryan higgins of new york mr. secretary, is this the most complicated negotiation that the administration has been involved with internationally? i think that the answer is

yes. i am searching my mind to think of anything that would rise to the higher level of complexity. arguably the new start agreement was complicated. would i have to say that this tops the list and and the interesting thing is that still. in an agreement. you hear the varying reports saying that 90% is done. and 60% is duven. the bottomline is that it is fluid. those issue that's remain will always be the most critical issues because they are the most difficult to find mu tu ality on but clearly with capacity central to this. of and the inspections and verification. how many pounds of enriched uranium has occurred currently the stockpile of low and enriched uranium that as i recall is about 7,000 kilos.

is that correct? under the current draft framework what would become of that 3.5% of enriched uranium? i cannot get into the details this. is subjected to the negotiations. one of the elements and writing points to that would be important to figure out the break out time is the available stockpile of material that they have to work with. centrifuges and the number of the centrifuges is one component and the stockpile is a third. depending on how to put the elements together you will limit their break out time. i cannot tell you what the limitation will be under the agreement that is subject today the negotiation the proliferation of centrifuges ten years ago there were probably you know. less than 200 centrifuges and now there is 19,000. now we are talking about the advanced centrifuges and we are talking about the next generation centrifuges and we are talking about as you

mentioned in your response and a knowledge that you cannot destroy. is it flawsible. is it realistic to accept the uranium iranian argument that they need so many centrifuges in order to sustain a civil peaceful nuclear program? look we are skeptical of that argument. the fact of the matter is that they clearly had the military aspirations for the program, at least through 2003. that is certainly the assessment that our intelligence community made at the time. and of course so many aspects of this program strongly suggest that they are seeking a nuclear weapons capacity. that said the argument for what it is worth is that they do want to build a nuclear power program for the country. they have vast oil resources so why they would need this

is a very good question. they want to devote the oil to exports and have the nuclear program for domestic energy production. they talk about the post carbon future that other countries talk about. and all of that said their activities of course will suggest that the opposite. if that is what they were focused on, that they can presumably buy nuclear fuel abroad. instead of processing it. what percentage of iranian domestic nuclear power is nuclear? it is very i will get you the exact number. what they proport to be looking at is a much more significant piece of.com of the i can energy programs to be provided by the nuclear. the argument for why they would need a suggest enrichment capacity in the future again we are skeptical of that. especially given the oil resources. just you know. again.

very, very difficult within the context of what iran is engaged in today. they are on the ground. iraq today. probably, you know. directly leading the shia militia in iraq today to defeat isis. he saved bashar al-assad to reserve syria into lebanon to hizbollah which acts as a proxy for iran and yet here we sit with them face-to-face in negotiations. i down stan the complexity of the diplomacy. and the fact that you use diplomacy with your enemies more than -- this is a very very very hard thing. not only technically from the standpoint of the negotiation. we appreciate your efforts. but politically, as well. you know to trust is a hard

thing and america is an extraordinary superpower. i do believe that even if in the end. we have to exercise a military option because negotiations fail, i do think that we will have to demonstrate to the international community that every diplomatic avenue was exhausted before that can happen and unfortunately, that is the responsibility of america's indispencible world power. i yield back. thank you. thank you i thank the gentleman for yielding mr. chair man. i appreciate it. i am not sure where to start. have i so many questions. just looking for the clarification. i this i that the best way to start is that there is a quote from president dwight eisenhower. 60 years ago when he announce that had adams for peace program. one lesson is clear. civilian nuclear programs flourish only through cooperation and openness.

secrecy and isolation are typically signs avenue nuclear weapons program. i don't think that is different. you know we look at iran over the last 30 years and if have you read. i am sure that you have. surrender is not an option. iran has been moving steadily in this direction ever since then. they have played the cat-and-mouse game. lied, deceived. this is a game that is as we know orchestrated deception and missed direction. we call that a lie in the country. i see that going on with the nuclear negotiations. it is great. and nuclear arms. and i think that we are in agreement that we will get nuclear arms. i am going into the third year. expert after expert is sitting where you are.

that said iran within 6 months that is when i first got here in january 2013 six hours to a year for material. and it has been over a year i assume that the experts like you told us that they would have that. no they are not and then you look at iran as prevent to go in and inspect, there is evidence that they detonated a trigger in the region. and they would not let the iaea go in and going back to what president eisenhower said if not forthright and honest and open is it prudent for the united states of america to go forward with this verses backing up from the negotiation table and say when you are serious iran, let us know and we will take

the sanctions off. iran is in a crisis most and they will take over a $160 billion to get out of it. and yesterday on the western hemisphere meeting. we had the experts again and the report from the state department said that iran and hizbollah has the most activity that they have had in the western hemisphere since 2009. iran is working with iraq to beat isis so they are funding the war in iraq. they funded a takeover of yem end. i ask you is that the nation and status of the nation that is in crisis. and they are starving and on the last dollar. would thin vest money in that and into their own country? what are your thoughts on that? if i could take that part of the question and did he ever to my colleague. i have another one. so go ahead.

i did not say that they were on the last dollar. and talking about a suffocated large country. what i talk about the were indicators of the economic strain on society and the economic strain is massive. it doesn't mean that they do not have thousands or hundreds and thousands of dollars to provide to nefarious actors in the region or latin america. some of the issues are coming cheap. we hear over and over again. fidel castro. has met with the ayatollah. and we have a common enemy american. and jointly together to its knees and i do not see that as any different. and with the narrative coming out of there. of and the rhetoric that you hear. like chairman rice says. death to america. and picking up a paper every week. will you find that there. and to move forward to think that we are stopping them. and henry kissinger ger said, the move that we are moving to prevent proliferation to managing it. so i think that we will come

clean with the american people. say they will have a nuclear weapon i think that we should put emphasis on what we will do the day that they do have that and have foreign policy. you are seeing saudi arabia and egypt wanting to run a nuclear program. are we going to monitor them. and say no you can't? at what point do you intervene? all of this we are going through i appreciate you going through it. i appreciate emphasis on something that we will prevent it. and we know they won't prevent it. i would say first of all as in many things. most things president eisenhower is very wise and appropriately to what we are looking at right now. precisely because iran's efforts to cheat and to dodge the responsibilities and dodge commitments to proceed with a program that the world is called them out the world has exerted pressure on them. the only reason that they

are there is in order to release the pressure and the fact that the pressure would be reimposed is the strong incentive that they would have to make good on the agreement. i would note again that under the interim agreement and under the temps of at agreement they would make good for the duration. going forward we have to have, and we will have for there to be an agreement. the most exemptional and intrusive. monitoring access and inspection regime than any ever seen that is the only thing to give us confidence that we are not trusting iran's word. we are looking at the actions, we will find out if it is violating the commitments. that is what it is all about. and at the end of the day. again, we will have to deal with. and by the way. i should say that we do not accept the proposition that they would get a nuclear weapon. the not tire effort that we are make something to make sure that they do not. if there is no agreement there is a good chance that they would bush rush to the weapon or have the capacity to make one. >> does that make the experts previously that said that they would have it

wrong? i any that would i have to go back and see what they said. i this i that what they were talking about is what is the cap asity and kwr were are they in terms of cap acity and in terms of weapons producing it. and what would the timeline be. we are pushing it back and making sure that if they did decide to do that we would see it and we would be able to do something about it time has expired. thank you mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman. and secretary blanken. for your testimony today. i also want to remind you about the points that we made here. the points that we made in the opening statements. i emplore you to convey those views. immediately if you would to secretary kerry and the negotiating team. you heard deep concerns over the sunset provision here. and the fact that it is only ten years. over the question of verification of the

agreement itself and whether as part of this process whether iran is going to be required to reveal its work that it took on trying to develop a nuclear weapon in the past as part of any final agreement you can't have real havecation going forward unless have you it revealed to the aiaea. and concerns about the previous military activities on the part of the regime. and the previous testing and what actually went on . in the sites they would not gives access to as well as iran's vast missile program that is underway as we speak. and about congress's role in this. so, there is a number of the other issues raised as well. i hope that you can convey that there are profound bipartisan concerns that will need to be heard. as they have a deal that may be announced any day. and while the hearing was taking place, there is news breaking from switzerland

that a draft is circulating there among the parties. in that draft iran would have 6,000 spinning centrifuges for the next decade. so i know that the committee is frustrate today read the press about this circulating. it says something about the administration's commitment to the transparency when the press says that the information. and we are reading this off of the news wire just on that point my understand something that there is no draft. that report is erroneous and indeed the spokesperson clarified that that is good news. we appreciate that. so when there is a draft, please share it with the members of this committee. and of the congress. we thank you again for your testimony for now, we will stand adjourned thank you mr. chairman.

commissioners testify about the latest internet rules and have approved of regulations designed to prohibit providers from blocking and discriminating against could not ten moving through the networks. congressman greg walton will share the energy and commerce subcommittee hearing. gentlemen can take their seats while they are i am going to before we start the clock. as many of you know. i will exert chairman's prerogative here we have not always gotten along. and i will have an opening

statement here. i am sick and tired of the third string approach to winning and the way that you are willing to tackle. and run over the top of people and score points just for scoring points. now, now that the game is over in the national football championship, i want everybody to know that i have kept my promise and warned the ohio state tie. so mr. chairman. you are out of order. right now. [laughter] i hope that we are on the record. i want to say two things. number one you are an honorable man thank you. you had the wrong side. we were pleased to beat you with our backup to the backup quarterback. . >> i do think that the color is becoming on you? and i would wear the ohio state tie if they beat my ducks and vice versa.

and also i want you to know there is a pending mat for be settled and i offered updates for lunch that i will buy. i suggest that if february 26 was a wonderful day for the chairman to have lunch with me. he suggested he had other matteres to attend to. all right. enough of the fun. thank you all for being here. i thank our fcc commissioners for being here, my colleagues. i know that this is a quote unquote go away day and we will be interrupted by votes, we will move through this. this is very important business to take up as we always do in the committee. so on to the serious matters. you know. it was over two weeksing a that we had the commission's managing director to present us with a rationale with the largest budget request in history for the federal communications committee. and we were able to discuss with him if funding levels would yield affective and credible age see. today we will have the opportunity to ask the commissioners whether the agency is functioning the way that it should or or producing high caliber policy make that can

american society will require and deserves and i for one have to confess i am skeptical there. is a good reason for skepticism and the federal communications commission was a transparent agency presiding with a light touch over the explosion of mobile internet investment. invasion that has benefited consumers and today the agency in my opinion has evolved into a place where statutory obligations are left in favor of scoring points. the agency's capitulation of the demand will come in a proceeding pro seed rational fail sxurz white house in the influence of the fcc's process is well documented by a credible news source including e-mails and senator reid's office in may. the responsibility of the expert agency to issue detailed note toys the public when it tends to act and to apply the expertise to now have hard questions of law and policy. this process will be transparent and every effort made to resist the calls to politicize the outcome.

in this respect, the fcc will learn a thing or two from the federal trade come and iing the agency. and the fcc rendered moot in protecting isp consumers. the properly functioning commission doesn't work behind closed doors to bypass the administration and the process to properly function decisions not based on the number of the click and al-bayati mails. and it will focus on law and facts and legal sounding analysis and political by juror and the overnight proceeding would not be when the fcc will abandon good process and also concern about the the use of delegated authority. and commissioners have a forth authority to deal with matters controversial and make policy. and should not simply delegate the decision to bury the results. and the concerns of transparent see have happened with commissioners and the lack of agreements not coming through the commissioners in the 11th hour. the concern that the excessive number of

proceeding left side remain unresolved and thousands of business left side wait in wings as commission will focus on extending the regulatory reach. the mostly i am concerned the fcc's over step and jurisdiction to regularly net neutrality. obvious example here. there are others and the agency has the authority to to give to it by statistic uchlt i do not know the communications act would give the impression that congress would grant fcc authority to be an ultimate area bitter of personal information and if the telecommunications act will be read and placed the fcc in the commission of the states will spend tax dollars. i cannot see how the fcc will possibly interpret the governing statutes to rest control from the contents and mandate presentation on the internet. but for the fact that i only have five minutes for my statement we could keep going. a waiver foremanagement and researchers and news rooms and adopting troubled damage and excessive and unfunded mergers and data dumps into

the record the fcc appears to believe that it is authorized to take the approach to the authority. i know when i see it. and to be fair. some of the responsibility a lies here in congress. we have not updated the communications act for decades and the technology is out of all of the regulatory framework. the fcc does not have the tools to do its job. this doesn't mean that the agency should distort or i iing current laws or threaten authority out the cloth should regulated independent stories have the resistance of the commission's demand. instead working with congress. we have offered away forward on net neutrality that is certain and less costly for the society and not clear to me that the objectiones to the legislation are based on policy. if we could work together on fixing the net neutrality situation we will be able to chalk up a victory for all of us and consumers and the american economy. it will started to with trying to if i can the agency itself it is our job to do due dill against and

reauthorize the agency for the first time since 1995. i thank our commissioners and chairman wheeler inform attendance today and look forward to the productive session ahead. and device chair. thank you mr. chair man. i appreciate you for yielding and holding the day's hearing and i thank the commissioners for being here this is the success and the productivity of the communications and the technology independent story. and it never ceases to amaze me. it has been and it is a constant bright spot in the economy. as it will rapidly advance to meet consumer demand and given the fcc's role in the marketplace is critical that the agency is transparent. and efficient. accountable that is why i am concern with the the fcc's decision to reclassify broadband internet services and telecommunications entitled two. that fact that they will go to the regulatory proof that the fundamental to flexibility needed to invest and invade and create jobs. and the order is processed is not transe parent and

regulatory over reach that would have lasting negative consequences and the hearing is a step into the right direction in efforts to make the agency more efficient affective. by the policy and decisions and processes. i look forward to the hearing from the commissioners and mr. chair man. i will yield back with the privilege. and i think that your tie looks great. i am sure glad i yielded time to you and i turn to california part of the pack 12. thank you. mr. chairman. i don't have any sports an allergies so obviously i hold a much different view and so i want to express that view with an intensity that i think needs to be brought to really what this is an issue that is all about. and i appreciate having the hearing but i think that the

main point is that on february 26th the american people finally won one. it was big. regular guys and gals across our country. part of beleaguered middle class were hurt. it was a historic day when the fcc voted for the bright line open internet rules to protect inability of consumers students and entrepreneurs to learn and explore create and market all on equal footing. this is about net equality. the fcc decision ensures that the internet remains open and accurate sell accessible to everyone. the source of intelectual enrichment and the engine for the economic growth and prosperity in the country the internet is the public library of our time. a laboratory of the most robust marketplace

imaginable and the fcc declare that had open to all and for all. i this i that this is nothing short of extraordinary. it was a day when the average person witness something very rare. a big shot in washington, d.c. sided with them. decision-makers actually took in and considered the advice of over 4 million americans. i remember watching tv when dr. king addressed a million people on the mall. it was a sea of humanity. put a multiplier on that. it is over 4 million people that weighed in. and i think that type of public engagement was our government should be celebrated and not rolled over and disrespected. today the majority has offered a legislative discussion draft intends

today reauthorize the fcc. i reviewed the draft legislation and concluded that in effect it is meant to squeeze an agency that is already operating at the lowest number of full-time staff in 30 years. the fcc has to have the means to fulfill the mission to protect consumers and promote competition. and advance innovation. that is their mission. this initial includes huge issues. they are huge. like freeing up additional spectrum. promoting municipal broadband deployment and enhancing the 911 services any attempt to overhaul the fcc's funding structure should be fully analyzed in the imcages of the changes should be fully understood. we should not be horsing around with it in plain english. in a 48-hour review it is insufficient. so i find myself wondering

why are we having this hearing today? i hope that it is not the fishing expedition. by compelling the fcc chairman and commissioners to testify five times over the course of eight days it seems to me that the majority seems to have chosen to ignore a glaring fact. over 4 million americans did something. they and countless more contacted their members of sgres to say, we don't want to pay more for less. we do not think any kind of discrimination blocking or throttling is good or fair. we are tired of poor service from providers. confusing bills, and having await for a half hour or more on hold to try to talk to a human being. we don't want any gate keepers. so i think that it is really what this is all about. i welcomed the debate. i welcome the discussion with the commissioners.

i yield the remainder of my time to congresswoman seeley. thank you very much ranking members. also would i like to welcome the chairman and the commissioners here today. we know over the last year that the debate over the future of the internet has not been an easy one there. are many twists and turns. in the end. i specifically am pleased with the fcc's net neutralit to ensure that the schemes and so-called internet fast lanes never see the light of day in the economy. the americans will not experience internet slow lanes and gate keepers that hinder the traffic. we know however the fight to preserve net neutrality is not over. that said it is time for to us get back to working on issues that advance our internet economy. and i think that the spectrum should be the top of the list. the aws 3 auction demonstrated an massive appetite for construction. and i look forward to the bipartisan legislation with congressman guthrie to

incentive auctions for federal agencies. that i yield back the balance of my time. yields back and recognizes the chairman and full committee. miss blackburn. thank you mr. chairman and to the commission. thank you. for being here. and offering your testimony. we have questions. we want to move right onto them. i think that the recent actions taken by the fcc have really raised more questions about your scope and your reach and your authority. i will also say about the transparency chairman wheeler, i do not think that it is acceptable for the commition to pass a rule before the american people to have an opportunity to find out what is in it. and that it was disappointing to us to release a draft and final order should have been apart of the rule making process.

and it is a disappointing that it was not every dollar that you spend is a taxpayer dollar. every action that you take affect the american taxpayer. so that lack of transparency is incredibly disappointing. i am sure that also you are hearing from netflix and some of the other stake holders who have been very disappointed. what they found out what they started to read the 322 word filled pages. i can tell you also as a former state senator from tennessee and somebody that worked on the interactive technology issues on there. i was terribly disappointed to see the action of the commission to choose to take a street to choose preempt state laws in tennessee and

north carolina that restrict municipal broad beaned tree. these are decisions that should be made by their state legislators and actions there disappointing we have questions about them mr. chairman i yield back my time. all right. chair recognizes the ranking member of the committee. mr. palone. over the past few days we have had we have heard quite a bit about the processed fairness and transparency in the fcc. we heard it again from the previous colleague. and the last few hours. and making sure their house is in order as the witness testimony was to be submit and the republicans released no notice and have a draft that would overhaul the fcc's funding and the maneuvering is unfair to the witnesses and the members of

the subcommittee mr. chairman. so the discussion draft that is was put out an hour and a half before the testimony came in. i realize that it is not enough time it is not a markup. but a hearing. we have circulated drafts and always tried to be transparent. in this congress we have seemed to have halted add tradition. i am not sure it is in the rules but along tradition of sharing just a week prior to the wills lative hearing and on the same tactics. will the gentlemen yield on that point? sure. when you all were in charge have i got a list here of examples where that was not the case. agree we need to be more transparent but -- if i can take back my time. would i like to see us go back to a tradition process

that we have at least a week prior to the legislative hearing. the same thing happened in the consumer manufacturing and trade subcommittee in the last couple of days. it just you know i understand maybe you give examples of things that were done in the past by us but i just think that you know mr. upton yourself subcommittee chairs have said they wanted to act in a bipartisan way want bipartisan bills. i appreciate that.